Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2022

2021003119 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/804,986 07/21/2015 Tony McCORMACK 648.0250 1760 93379 7590 03/29/2022 Setter Roche LLP 1860 Blake Street Suite 100 Denver, CO 80202 EXAMINER WEBB III, JAMES L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): pair_avaya@firsttofile.com sarah@setterroche.com uspto@setterroche.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TONY McCORMACK, JOHN H. YOAKUM, and JOE SMYTH ____________ Appeal 2021-003119 Application 14/804,986 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant claims a device, system and method for automated vehicle guidance system. (Title). 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003119 Application 14/804,986 2 Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method, comprising: at a contact center, performing a transaction between an electronic device and the contact center, the transaction including at least one correspondence between a user of the electronic device and the contact center; determining location data corresponding to the electronic device, the location data being indicative of a location of the electronic device; determining prioritized location data based upon the location data and further related data, the further related data being at least one of an analysis of the at least one correspondence, internal information of the contact center, and external information available to the contact center, wherein the prioritized location data indicates a priority of the location of the electronic device relative to one or more other locations corresponding to respective one or more other transactions; and transmitting the prioritized location data to an unmanned, automated vehicle (UA V), the UA V configured to automatically move to the location of the electronic device and the one or more other locations in an order corresponding to the priority indicated by the prioritized location data. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix). THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peeters (US 2015/0353195 A1; published Dec. 10, 2015) in view of Wang et. al (US 2016/0012393 A1; published Jan. 14, 2016) and Nath et. al (US 2015/0317582 A1; published Nov. 5, 2015). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Peeters, Wang, Nath and further in view of Boss (US 2016-0028471 A1; published Jan. 28, 2016). Appeal 2021-003119 Application 14/804,986 3 ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Peeters, Wang and Nath. Final Act. 4. We will not sustain this rejection because we agree with Appellant that the prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed step of “determining prioritized location data . . . the prioritized location data indicates a priority of the location of the electronic device relative to one or more other locations corresponding to respective one or more other transactions.” (Appeal Br. 4, 5). The Examiner relies on Peeters for disclosing determining prioritized location data based upon location data and further related data and Wang for teaching prioritized location data that indicates a location relative to one or more other locations. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner recognizes that Peeters/Wang does not disclose that the prioritized locations correspond to respective one or more other transactions. (Final Act. 5). The Examiner relies on Nath for disclosing “priority of a location of the electronic device relative to one or more other locations corresponding to respective one or more other transactions.” (Final Act. 7). The Examiner relies on paragraph 32 of Nath for teaching that a bonus may be provided upon completion of particular tasks prior to some deadline. The Examiner reasons that because Nath discloses that some of the tasks are valued higher such as yielding a bonus and that the tasks may be defined as transactions, Nath discloses “priority of a location relative to one or more other locations corresponding to respective one or more other transactions.” (Final Act. 7; Ans. 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to add Nath’s features to Appeal 2021-003119 Application 14/804,986 4 Peeters/Wang and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (Final Act. 8). It is not clear from the rejection how the features disclosed in Nath could be combined with Peeters and Wang to meet the limitations of claim 1. If one were to add the Nath feature of providing a bonus to workers who complete tasks that are done before a deadline as disclosed in Nath to the Peeters/Wang combination such would not result in “priority of the location of the electronic device relative to one or more other locations corresponding to respective one or more other transactions” as required by claim 1. In addition, we do not agree with the Examiner that Nath teaches that some tasks have a priority. All that is taught in Nath is that the completion of tasks before a deadline may result in a bonus. There is not a cited teaching that some of the tasks have a priority over other tasks and thus are eligible for bonuses. In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection as it is related to claim 1 and claims 2 and 4 to 13 dependent therefrom. We will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to the claims 14-20 for the same reason. We will also not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Peeters, Wang, Nath and Boss for the same reason. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2021-003119 Application 14/804,986 5 DECISION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-20 103 Peeters, Wang, Nath 1, 2, 4-20 3 103 Peeters, Wang, Nath, Boss 3 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED